Feminism

One more thing, because I missed it...Sexual dimorphism is associated with investment is the offspring.In species where investment is minimal, males tend to be larger than females. In species where it is almost equal, like in many birds, the differences are smaller. Humans show a significant dimoprhism.

This means that makes must compete for sexual access.

Paternal or Maternal social conventions are also associated with the degree of threats to a species.Bonobos for survival reasons, migrated up the mountainside, where predators were significantly fewer than those where chimpanzees stayed.Paternalism is associated with a need for inventive, strong males.Maternal societies, such as our currently developing feminization, is associated with relative peace and prosperity - the division is one along the right/left political lines.

Males have an advantage in spatial conceptualization, because they had to hunt, and a good hunter must triangulate to hit his mark - this is the basis of abstract thinking where females are inferior, and so they do not appear as useful in anything demanding abstract thinking, such as philosophy.Males also dominate in inventiveness, tin rebelliousness, challenging authority and conventions, thinking outside the box, because they had to prove themselves before they gained access to females.This is more pronounced in the Indo-European, race because they were forced in less hospitable environments, where inventiveness, creativity, was essential to survive and to pass on your genes. Monogamy also developed among these tribes, because they were more dependent on others...whereas the Negroes remaining in their primordial habitat did not have to evolve much, and he could be less cooperative. Altruism evolved within Aryan tribes, as a survival necessity, not so important to races that remained within less demanding environments.Monogamy also had to evolve among the Aryans who had to integrate as many males into the group if they were to survive...not so important to Negroes...so they remained far more promiscuous.

Feminine minds are more focused on integrating within a group, maintaining peace and stability, social rules, and evaluating psychologies....nurturing relationships because their reproductive role forces them to become more vulnerable during and after gestation. This is why females change their loyalties with ease, adapting to new hierarchies, why they are family and socially oriented...why they never contradict the status quo, unless it seems, to them, to be waning. Females contribute to the status quo, or to any trend they judge as ascending in power, or dominance within the group. They accept any new fashion, in society, technology, spirituality, philosophy, politics.They remain shallow and superficial, so as to change allegiances, or to not invest heavily in any power structure. they never, ever, innovate, rebel, or contradict power, unless they sense it weakening and being replaced by an upcoming new power. The clever noes find pride in being on the forefront of fashion, of trendiness...of avant guard thinking.They compete, with each other, on who is most ahead of the times, more in-tune with new fashions and trends.

Yes yes, but what does Shlomo Shekelstein, the sociology "expert" say about this? Surely it's just a bunch of patriarchal social constructs invented by cis white males.

An expert shows you connections you could not make sense of, he does not give, you or tell you what is TRUTH.This is the difference between nihilists and Realists...or Pagans and Abrahamics.Another mind is not evidence....someone saying so, or a bunch of others saying so, is not an argument....majority is not what determines what is a superior theory.An insightful mind, a teacher, exposes you to what was always right before your eyes, but you could not articulate or make sense of.He reveals what was, fro you concealed. He does not command you, or impose anything upon you....he says "Look, you blind monkey.....see what I see?"He does not say..."See through my eyes, or I will tell you what to see, if you close your eyes to the world.".An expert does not fabricate reality, he exposes it.

These degenerates are asking us to blind ourselves to all we see, and to feel their truth...so they minimize what is obvious....like racial and sexual differences. it's not large enough of a difference, she says....feel the injustice and surrender to feelings.

3% difference is big enough to separate chimpanzees from homo sapiens, but anything below this is not significant enough to make an impact...so why not ignore the differences, and approximate parity?Lets' ignore everything below an arbitrary, convenient, level, and pretend it's all the same.

And who decides how big or small it must be before we generalize?They do, of course, based on emotional criteria.What hurts...okay everything above that level is not appropriate.Let's pretend it's not there, so they do not hurt.

Statistics and data is the new fashion statement on thinking. The loony mimetic feud between the current right/alt-right and the left is a case in point. They are both obsessed with language and sources of information they fling at each other branded with their own labels on them as selling points to others. They both reinforce different versions of the status quo, whether they are aware of it or not.

Who has the best selling point to the status quo, is the competition. Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote that real intelligence comes from the ability to reach an insight about something on your own, despite never having read others who have already reached it.

What's funny is that these "rebels" against the status quo are so dependent and impressed by the mere mention of an authority figure, that supports their emotional "arguments", or that they even consider such naive, infantile methods "arguments".

This is pronounced in these so called Nietzscheans, who declare themselves revolutionary thinkers, and then surrender to the cult of personality. The mere mention of the name is an 'argument" is "evidence".

We see this in a more unsophisticated form with these morons, like the girly.She's considers herself an advanced, enlightened mind, contrary to authority and paternalism, and then has only deference to authorities as "arguments"....she cannot articulate their "conclusions" so she refers to them.It's like what the shit-Stain did....he is clueless, incompetent, a mediocre mind declaring himself a genius, and all he has is his theoretical dinners with intellectuals, his success with women, and some allusions to intellectuals he supposedly understands and are superior to what we, mortals consider philosophy.

In the case of the Jewish princess, she likes to think of herself as the equal to men, and liberated from her dependence on them...but here she is, alluding to male pseudo-intellectuals, adopting male idealism, and demanding that the masculine entity of the state assures her an idealized lifestyle as a pretend male. We've provided her sex with the means to pretend she is a male, with abortion on demand, the pill, policing, and law and order, giving her the right to pretend to be whatever she needs to cope with what she is, but this is not enough when there are real men around reminding her she is pretending to be their equal, and that she cannot even walk down a dark street without shitting in her panties...because, you see, there are special laws protecting males from hoodlums and violence. She wants the state to step in and ramp up the illusion of parity...because without the state she remembers what she truly is.She demands that the paternalistic system, she theoretically opposes, become more strict towards everyone but her, so as to offer a protective shield for the little girls to play at being men......so she wants a father-figure entity to walk next to her, at all times, with an all-encompassing, protective umbrella.

She has to make it all a social construct because her ideal is a social constructed lie.Imagine her arguing with a man, in the wild, where no modern systems exist, about her rights and how equal she is to him. Imagine her telling him he wants to rape her, because of his upbringing, and his need to feel superior to her, or some other political motive. She's a pathetic, hypocritical, imbecile, like the lot of them.

_________________γνῶθι σεαυτόνμηδέν άγαν

Last edited by Satyr on Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

What's funny is that these "rebels" against the status quo are so dependent and impressed by the mere mention of an authority figure, that supports their emotional "arguments", or that they even consider such naive, infantile methods "arguments".

This is pronounced in these so called Nietzscheans, who declare themselves revolutionary thinkers, and then surrender to the cult of personality. The mere meton of the name is an 'argument" is "evidence".

We see this in a more unsophisticated form with these morons, like the girly.She's considers herself an advanced, enlightened mind, contrary to authority and paternalism, and then has only deference to authorities as "arguments"....she cannot articulate their "conclusions" so she refers to them.It's like what the shit-Stain did....he is clueless, incompetent, a mediocre mind declaring himself a genius, and all he has is his theoretical dinners with intellectuals, his success with women, and some allusions to intellectuals the supposedly understands and are surprise to what we, mortals consider philosophy.

In the case of the Jewish princess, she likes to think of herself as the equal to men, and liberated from hr dependence on them...but here she is, alluding to male pseudo-intellectuals, adopting male idealism, and demanding that the masculine entity of the state, assures her an idealized lifestyle as a pretend male. We've provided her sex with the means to pretend she is a male, with the abortion, the pill and policing, and law and order, giving her the right to pretend to be whatever she needs to cope with what she is, but this is not enough when there are real men around reminding her she is pretending to be their equal, and that she cannot even walk down a dark street without shitting in her panties...because, you see, there are special laws protecting males from hoodlums and violence. She want the state to step in and ramp up the illusion of parity...because without the state she remembers what she truly is.She demands that the paternalistic system she theoretically opposes, become more strict, towards everyone but her, so as to offer a protective shield for the little girls to play at being a man......so she wants a father-figure entity to walk next other, with an all-encompassing, protective umbrella.

She has to make it all a social construct because her ideal is a social constructed lie.Imagine her arguing with man, in the wild, where no modern systems exist, about her rights and how equal she is to him.She's a pathetic, hypocritical, imbecile, like the lot of them.

I'm somewhat disappointed. I went out of my way, taking a week of my life, to make a strong argument and back it up with a lot of evidence. But all I got in return was anecdotes and conjectures. Both would be fine if you people presented at least some decent evidence to back it up, or at least pretend to like Tomi Lahren does, or even make a serious effort to disprove the evidence. But there is no good argument against all the evidence I brought up.

Citing a statistic or a science journal is not blindly following authority; it's citing reliable evidence to back up your claims, especially since I know how to actually read a statistic or scientific study to figure out how the scientists arrived to their conclusions. It's hypocritical to tell me I blindly follow authority when you take at face value everything Black Pigeon Speaks, Camille Paglia, and Karen Straughan say with no critical comments on any of them.

@Impulso Oscuro, I'm sorry to hear you were depressed for 2 years. But getting put in the friends zone by a girl you like is not a good reason to adopt a political ideology. You need to seriously look at evidence and critically examine what you believe in and why. Adopting a party line to soothe your butthurt is a bad decision to make. You're better than that.

@Satyr, you're like a broken record. You repeat the same things, over and over again, no matter what anyone says, and it's all based on personal anecdotes and broad conjectures. Both would be fine if you bothered to back it up with critical thought; in other words an actual desire to do the hard work to find the truth. This is bad philosophy, if it can be called philosophy at all.

@AutSider, Shekelstein insults are neither creative, intelligent, nor funny. For every joke you make about Jews and showers, I can make jokes about Communists utterly destroying the Nazis. At least Communists won WW2. Fascist ideologies always fail because they are so deeply delusional and hypocritical and cannot honestly asses the people they consider enemies.

I'm somewhat disappointed. I went out of my way, taking a week of my life, to make a strong argument and back it up with a lot of evidence. But all I got in return was anecdotes and conjectures. Both would be fine if you people presented at least some decent evidence to back it up, or at least pretend to like Tomi Lahren does, or even make a serious effort to disprove the evidence.

Is it "evidence" to allude to some debunking by some authority, or do you seek evidence directly in world?It took you a week to google search that crap?

Quote :

But there is no good argument against all the evidence I brought up.

How could there be?Rape is a social construct, means rape in nature is a product of human societies. Species simply emerge overnight...they do not gradually evolve through intermediate states.Specialization only affects the body, and not the mind, just as environment only affects the body, how it looks, and not the mind, how it thinks. Intelligence just happened...or God created it. He created man, as social organism and placed him in a system. There was no past. It all began 6 thousand years ago.

Quote :

Citing a statistic or a science journal is not blindly following authority; it's citing reliable evidence to back up your claims, especially since I know how to actually read a statistic or scientific study to figure out how the scientists arrived to their conclusions. It's hypocritical to tell me I blindly follow authority when you take at face value everything Black Pigeon Speaks, Camille Paglia, and Karen Straughan say with no critical comments on any of them.

Moron, I repeat myself because I come across the same bullshyte.

Explain how nature only works superficially, affecting individuals physically but not mentally, if you can.Explain how man invented rape, as part of his power relationships, and that it has no sexual factor. Explain why rape is so distressful, when it is a benevolent sharing of love?

Do something more than declare shit, and then demand to be respected and to be taken seriously.

Moron, read that book by Thornhill and Palmer, if you actually care for the truth.They answers all your post-modern mythologies and addresses all your statistics and your emotional defensiveness.Then come back and let's discuss.

A excerpt, that unfortunately does not copy & paste well.It requires work, I have to justify to myself, given the quality of the counter- argument.

Bear with me as I untangle this mess.

Thornhill: Palmer wrote:

A Critique of the Arguments

We now offer a critique of the arguments that are most often used to support the claim that rapists are not sexually motivated.

Argument 1"When they say sex or sexual, these social scientists and feminists [who argue that rape is not sexually motivated] mean the motivation, moods, or drives associated with honest courtship and pair bonding. In such situations, males report feelings of tenderness, affection, joy and soon.. . .It is this sort of pleasurable motivation that the socioculturists (and feminists) denote as sexuality.... " (Shields and Shields 1983,p.122)The socio-cultural definition of 'sex' is inaccurately and unnecessarily restricted. In view of the more common usage of the word 'sex', it is, according to Hagen(1979,pp.158-159), "abundantly self evident. ..that a large percentage of males have no difficulty in divorcing sex from love, " and "whistles and wolf-calls, attendance at burlesque shows,[and] patronizing of call girls and prostitutes" are all "probably manifestations of a sexual urge totally or largely bereft of romantic feelings."

Argument 2 Rape is not sexually motivated, because "most rapists have stable sexual partners"(SanfordandFetter1979, p..This argument hinges on the assumption that a male's sexual desire is exhausted by a single partner. In addition to being contrary to our knowledge of the evolution of human sexuality, this assumption is obviously inconsistent with Symons's observation (1979,p.280) that "most patrons of prostitutes, adult bookstores, and adult movie theaters are married men, but this is not considered evidence for lack of sexual motivation."

Argument 3Rape is not sexually motivated, because rapes are often "premeditated" (Brownmiller 1975;Griffin 1971).This argument hinges on the assumption that all acts that are truly sexually motivated are spontaneous. The assumption is obviously untrue: many highly planned affairs, rendezvous, and seductions are considered to be sexually motivated (Symons1979,p.279).

Argument 4 The age distribution of rapists demonstrates that rape is a crime of violence and aggression rather than a crime of sex: ".. .the violence prone years for males extend from their teenage years into their late forties, this is the age range into which most rapists fall. Unlike sexuality, aggression does diminish with age and, therefore, a male's likelihood of committing a rape diminishes with the onset of middle age."(Groth and Hobsonl983,p.l61)Contrary to this assertion, the peak age distribution of rapists (teens through twenties; see Thornhill and Thornhill 1983) is perfectly consistent with the view that rapists are sexually motivated, since it closely parallels the age distribution of numerous other types of male sexual activity and of maximum male sexual motivation in general (Kinseyetal.1948; Goethals1971).

Argument 5The fact that rape is common in war demonstrates that rape is motivated by hostility rather than sex (Brownmiller 1975,pp.31-113;Card 1996).The high frequency of rape during war does not necessarily indicate that the rapists are not sexually motivated. The exceptionally high vulnerability of females during war may account for the greater frequency of rape by sexually motivated men. Theft is also frequent during war situations, owing to the fact that punishment is unlikely (Morris 1996), but this does not imply that the thieves are not motivated by desire for the stolen objects. Furthermore, the patterns of rape during war are consistent with the view that the rapist soldiers are sexually motivated and inconsistent with the view of rape as simply a tool of political domination. Throughout recorded history, the pattern in large-scale warfare has been to spare andrape the young non-pregnant women and to slaughter everyone else (Shields and Shields 1983; Hartung 1992).

Brownmiller (1975) sees rape in large-scale war as stemming in part from the frenzied state of affairs and the great excitement of men who have just forcefully dominated the enemy. That hypothesis predicts that soldier rapists would be indiscriminate about the age of the victims. But they are not; they prefer youngwomen. Similarly, Brownmiller's view that rape in war—like rape in general—is a strategy of men to dominate women predicts that men would rape older women, who tend to have more resources and more social dominance.

Argument 6 Rather than a sexually motivated act, rape is a form of "social control" because it is used as a form of punishment in some societies (Brownmiller1975,p.285).The flaw in this argument is that the use of rape as a punishment" does not prove that sexual feelings are not also involved, anymore than the deprivation of property as punishment proves that the property is not valuable to the punisher "(Symons1979,p.280).

Argument7"Men have been asked why they raped and many have said it was not out of sexual desire but for power and control over their victims." (Dean and deBruyn-Kopps1982,p.233, citing evidence from Groth1979 ) to Numerous studies have found that rapists often cite sexual desire as a cause of their actions. For example, Smithyman(1978,p.ix) reports that 84 percent of rapists surveyed cited sexual motivation "solely or in part" as a cause of their acts. "Indeed, even the quotations Groth(1979,pp.38, 42) selected in an attempt to demonstrate the insignificance of sexual motivation includes such statements as "She stood there in her nightgown, and you could see right through it—you could see her nipples and breasts and, you know, they were just waiting for me, and it was just too much of a temptation to pass up" and "I just wanted to have sex with her and thatwas all."

Indeed, Groth(p.28) points out that the most common type of rapist— what Groth calls the "power rapist"—"may report that his behavior was prompted by a desire for sexual gratification."It is also important to note that reports of rapists 'citing power and control rather than sexual desire as the cause of their actions come primarily from studies of convicted rapists. Were these men truthfully reporting their motives, or were they giving the explanations desired by the researchers?As Symons(1979,p.283) observes,"it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the men's conscious attempts to emphasize their correct attitudes and to minimize their sexual impulsiveness were to some extent calculated to foster the impression that they no longer constituted a threat."

Argument 8The physical harm done to victims demonstrates that rapists are not motivated by sexual desire (Harding 1985).To determine the significance of data on rapist violence and victim injury , one must distinguish between instrumental force (the force actuallyneeded to complete the rape, and possibly to influence the victim not to resist, not to call for help, and/or not to report the rape) and excessive force (which might be a motivating end in itself). Only excessive force is a possible indication of violent motivation. Use of forceful tactics to reach a desired experience does not imply that the tactics are goals in themselves (unless, as was noted above, one is willing to argue that a man's giving money to a prostitute in exchange for sex is evidence that the man's behavior is motivated by a desire to give away money). Here again the crucial distinction between goals and tactics is blurred when rape is referred to as an act of violence.Harding(1985,p.51) claims that "in many cases of rape in humans, assault seems to be the important factor, not sex, " on the ground that "inmost cases the use of force goes beyond that necessary to compel compliance with the rapist's demands. "However, it is evident from the actual data—including the data that Harding cites on the very same page—that, although force is often used instrumentally to accomplish a rape, excessive force resulting in substantial physical injuries occurs only in a minority of rapes. In their study of 1401 rape victims, McCahill et al.(1979 ) found that most of the victims reported the use of instrumental force (84percent reported being threatened with bodily harm, 64 percent being pushed or held), but acts that might indicate excessive force were reported in only a minority of the rapes (slapping in 17 percent, beating in 22 percent, choking in 20 percent). Similarly, a survey of volunteers at rape crisis centers found that only 15 percent of victims they encountered reported having been beaten in excess of what was needed to accomplish the rape (Palmer 1988b,p.219).

Geis(1977) found that 78 percent of the rapists in his study had wanted the victim to cooperate.Katz and Mazur(1979,p. 171 ) found that "although most rape victims encountered some form of physical force, few experienced severe lasting injuries"— a pattern also reported by Bowyer and Dalton(1997). Even a study that focused on"overly violent rapists" (Que en's Bench Foundation 1978,p.778) found that only 23 percent of these rapists inflicted "very severe injury." In comparison with Harding's assertion, the evidence appears to be more consistent withHagen's (1979,p.87)conclusion:.. .in the great majority of rape cases, physical injury , other than that which might he related to penetration is not done to the victim (for example Brownrniller 1975,p.216; Burgess and Holmstrom 1974). And generally, there is no injury at all. If violence is what the rapist is after, he's not very good at it. Certainly he has the victim in a position from which he could do all kinds of physical damage.Even when excessive violence does occur, sexual motivation still appears to be a necessary part of the explanation for why a rape rather than a non sexual assault occurred. As Rada(1978a,p.22)states,"if aggression were the sole motive it might be more simply satisfied by a physical beating."Although murder of a rape victim certainly may indicate hostile motivation, at least some such murders may be due to the simple fact that killing the victim greatly increases the rapist's chances of escaping punishment by removing the only witness to the rape (Alexander and Noonan 1979;Groth 1979;Hagen 1979). Rape-murders,however,are a very small percentage of all murders. In the United States, over the period 1976-1994, in no year was the percentage of murders that included rape or other sexual assault higher than 2 (Greenfield 1997)—and an unknownportion of that small percentage involved male murder victims.An evolutionary approach can also explain patterns of excessive force in the minority of cases where it does occur. Young women, highly over represented as rape victims,are also at the greatest risk of being killed by their assailants, according to data from the United Kingdom, Canada, andChicago (Wilsonetal.1997). Young women appear to resist rape more than females in other age groups. The strong sexual motivation of the rapist to rape a young victim, in combination with her greater resistance, may account for young women's over representation in homicides with sexual assault. And female victims of theft-murder are, on average,much older than female victims of rape-murder (Wilsonetal.1997).Another circumstance that is probably related to the use of excessive violence by some rapists is dissolution of mateship. Men's sexual jealousy and other proprietary actions toward deserting mates often includes battering as a mechanism of sexual control. Another abusive behavior may be inseminating the deserting mate against her will, which has the (perhaps evolved) effect of increasing the rapist's paternity reliability if there is sperm competition. There are data indicating that men who rape their estranged mates are more likely to physically injure the victim than rapists who have other relationships to the victim (Felson and Krohn1990).While contrary to the social science explanation of rape, evidence that rapists do not routinely use excess violence in order to mate with unwilling women is predicted by evolutionary theory. Rape occurs against the will of the victim and thus is often accompanied by tactical violence. However, violence that injures the victim would reduce her ability to produce and care for any offspring that resulted from the rape. This cost,which applies to much of human evolutionary history, is expected to have given riseto selection for rapists who minimize injury to their victims.' 'As was detailed in chapter 3, the evolutionary view of rape as rape specific adaptation suggests that men may be sexually aroused by physical control of the victim because such control would have facilitated rape in human evolutionary history while also reducing the cost of rape to therapist. This does not imply that rape motivation of men requires physical control of the victim; it implies only that such control, when perceivedby men, may increase rape motivation because it increases their sexual arousal.

Argument 9IT IS NOT A CRIME OF LUST BUT OF VIOLENCE AND POWER...RAPE VICTIMS ARE NOT ONLY THE "LOVELYYOUNG BLONDES" OF NEWSPAPER HEADLINES—RAPISTS STRIKE CHILDREN,THE AGED,THE HOMELY—ALL WOMEN. (Brownmiller1976,back cover)It is fitting that this argument should appear in bold type on the cover of Brownmiller's milestone book Against Our Will, since the assertion that rapists do not prefer sexually attractive victims is probably the most powerful and the most widely cited argument used to support the claim that rapists are not sexually motivated (Palmer1988a). That argument is fatally flawed, however. The statement that "any female may become a victim of rape" (Brownmiller1975,p.348) does not imply that the "rapist chooses his victim with a striking disregard for conventional 'sex appeal'" (ibid. ,p.338). Contrary to Brownmiller, although any female might become a victim of rape, some women are far more likely to become victims of rape than others. Indeed,one of the most consistent finding of studies on rape, and one not likely to be due entirely to reporting bias, is that women in their teens and their early twenties are highly over represented among rape victims around the world (Svalastoga 1962;Amir 1971 ; MacDonald 1971;Miyazawa 1976;Hindelang 1977;Hindelang and Davis 1977;Russell 1984;Kramer1987;Whitaker 1987 ;Pawson and Banks 1993). Far from demonstrating the absence of sexual motivation in rapists, the correlation between the age distribution of rape victims and the age ofpeak female sexual attractiveness is powerful evidence of such motivation.Other such evidence is provided by the finding that during sexual assaults men are more likely to engage in penile-vaginal intercourse (as opposed to exclusively non-copulatory sexual behaviors), and in multiple episodes of such intercourse, when the victim is a young woman than when she is of non-reproductive age.(Seechapter4.)Many of the researchers who have denied the importance of sexual motivation in rape have asserted that the vulnerability of victims is the primary factor explaining the age pattern of victimization. For example, Groth (1979,p.173)states that "vulnerability and accessibility play a more significant role in determining victim selection than does physical attractiveness or alleged provocativeness" and that "rape is far more an issue of hostility than of sexual desire. "This argument is truly astonishing in view of the fact that the age distribution of rape victims is essentially the opposite of what would b predicted by this explanation. Numerous researchers, including Groth, have pointed out that females in the age categories least likely to be raped are the most vulnerable. As Rodabaugh and Austin(1981 ,p.44)note, "both the very young and the very old [are]at high risk because of their inability to resist. "Indeed, although the elderly are "particularly vulnerable "to rape (Groth 1979,p.173), various studies, including Groth's own, have consistently found that less than 5 percent of rape victims are over the age of 50. Although the greater vulnerability of children and the elderly probably accounts for why they are raped more often than would be expected on the basis of their attractiveness alone.

A Natural History of Rape

_________________γνῶθι σεαυτόνμηδέν άγαν

Last edited by Satyr on Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:33 pm; edited 6 times in total

@Impulso Oscuro, I'm sorry to hear you were depressed for 2 years. But getting put in the friends zone by a girl you like is not a good reason to adopt a political ideology. You need to seriously look at evidence and critically examine what you believe in and why. Adopting a party line to soothe your butthurt is a bad decision to make. You're better than that.

You didn't answer my question, and responded in the most predictable way, but thats what you wanted to hear right? Save your patronizing, im glad it all happened, i probably wouldn't be here if it hadn't.

But i wonder how would you answer it? Would you say that the disparity between me and the other guy was itself a mistake, would you say that my preference for her "intelligence" is a mistake itself? Perhaps i should've just closed my eyes and "eeenie meenie minie mo".

I think its a great reason, it illustrated the hypocritical nature of those who desire equality, a trend which i have seen again and again ever since.

Your evidence is all words and no action, thinking that if i ignore my senses and believe in the word long enough, it will eventually come true...

The main thing is my jokes are funny and based on facts - overwhelming influence of a certain tribe in global politics compared to their actual numbers, and the fact that their influence is destructive to white people.

Your jokes are based on disregarding the fact that the Communists far outnumbered the Nazis, aka on disregarding the scientific principle of all other factors equal (ceteris paribus), which I'm glad you did because it showed how hypocritical you are, and that you only pretend to care about science when you think it supports your views, but you disregard actual scientific principles the moment it is convenient for you.

The only reason Nazis are hated is the post-war propaganda. Objectively speaking, they're the modern day equivalent of Spartans - they had better quality men, they caused disproportionate losses to the enemy, and they ultimately lost due to being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. In a saner world, we would be admiring them in the same way we admire the 300 Spartans.

America designed a government to criminalize black people ever since slavery ended.

So your alternative is to let criminals roam freely, murdering, raping, thieving as they seem fit? And when you are the victim, won't you run to the authorities, the very ones you just rebuked? Sounds like a simple contradiction-hypocrisy to me. You basically bite the hand that feeds you.

I'm cool but others are not? Does that mean you agree with my perspective on feminism? Do you even know my position or are you self-absorbed? To me, a "feminine woman" is one who is dignified, does not slut around, is self confident with her ability to seduce, chooses a mate, a man with severe discrimination, cooks for her man, and builds a home, and family for herself. She defends what she has created and is responsible for. She is not ashamed of herself, like modern women and "feminisnts" are.

A really feminine woman is not a "feminist" by any means. The word "feminism" is an inversion, a corruption, twisting around the premise, a feminine-woman, as a means of political ideology and leverage. The ideal of "feminists" and those who created the movement, is to undermine and destroy traditional homes and families, marriages, and the truly 'feminine' women.

If you were a feminine woman then you would quickly learn how feminism is a sham, and detrimental to yourself, and other women.

Universities, as many academics now tell us, have been taken over by the social warriors of post-modernity, bread and raised since the sixties on Marxist propaganda. The humanities, in particular, are dominated by hippie types and activist more interested in bringing about a Utopian Marxist society, than exploring reality. Peterson is one of many who are exposing the infection of the same dis-ease infecting culture, in academia.

In their desperation to prove that Negroes are equal to other races, and to explain why there si no civilization before contact with the evil White man, comparable to those found in Asia and Europe, they shamelessly attempt to make Egyptian civilization one established by Negroes.

Since I've been reprimanded for repeating myself, and sounding like a "broken record" when I repeat the same arguments these degenerates fail to respond to, and then throwing at me the same crap I've faced for twenty years, I promise to never respond to the same tired crap again.

From now on, I will respond to this degenerate that all her posts have been answered, here, and in many other threads throughout KT and other Forums.If she offers no challenges to them, directly, but cites the same crap, seeking validation in authorities infected by her dis-ease, and offers no logical explanations to the queries I make into her absurdities, then there's really nothing more to say. Her positions, though regurgitated, fail to offer explanations, not only to the positions quoted above, but to observations into species behaviour throughout nature. She simply wants to cherry pick studies made by her social warrior types, to validate positions she cannot justify on her own. All she does is hide behind authorities, while declaring whores in the wold west as being challenging to institutional authority and paternalism.She contradicts her own declarations, with actions. Here she is, a real female, completely dependent on authorities, declaring females as being rebels and challenging authority. Unable to offer her own arguments, all she has are these proxies. In the meantime she is a living example of all my positions concerning females and their mentality.

I've given her a response constructed by another, since she does not respect anything that comes from unauthorized sources, and cannot judge an argument on merit, but only values it based on popularity and official, sanctioning. The idea that science is also corrupted by cultural influences, and their dependence on funding, is not enough to question authorities that tell her exactly what she wants to believe. Rape is rampant in nature. No social power games, or human contrivances there. Only basic reproduction strategies. No moralities, and 'oughts" and 'should be's', only basic utility and cost/benefit judgment calls.

The authors of the book I quoted offer some very compelling reasoning into many aspect of rape...from why young females with mates seem to suffer more distress than do females with no mate or older females that cannot conceive, to explanations as to why rape is so distressful to females, generally, when no damage is done, and they are built to be penetrated.

She vomits this crap as if she is debunking something, and then demands others wade through the filth to figure out what specifically she thinks is an argument against what is being said here.

Take #5, which has been answered not only by me but by the authors in the book I quoted.

What does this study state?That males tend to be more aroused by consensual sex than by violent sex....and?How does this contradict my positions?I'm supposed to figure that out, because the twat is afraid that if she says something she'll expose what a moron she is.

#4 offers us a feminist approach to seductive attire, and objectification of women, straight out of the same book of feminism. We are supposed to weep because men objectify women.we're supposed to suspend our own reasoning, and believe that females do not dress provocatively during fertile periods in their cycle, and that going out with tits and ass on display does not increase the chances of being raped....like entering the Pacific with a bloody steak in your anus does not increase the odds of being eaten by a great white shark.

She included an article on male rape, as if male rape is the same as female rape...because having a penis shoved in your rectum is exactly the same as having it shoved into your vagina.Was your ass made to be fucked?Faggots say yaaaa....holla!!!

Look at #1.... pandemic of sexual violence, already part of my thesis on feminization....But I shan't repeat myself, and I shall remain quiet, and let her declare victory. Does it say why rape evolved or why it persists?What is called "sexual harassment" in these degenerate times, was called flirting 30 years ago. Ha!!!

This is the kind of "arguments" this imbecile thinks are new, and require a response.....when they've been responded to a dozen times. But I repeat myself, so I shall not....

Generally Equal" is not equal. Men have higher IQs not only on average but on the right end of the bell curve, where it matters most.

I explained in detail why the majority studies show that men don't have higher general intelligence than women. I also explained why the studies by Richard Lynn, who argues that men have higher IQ, was flawed because he left out a significant portion of the data. I also brought up Robert Sapolsky, who explained that as societies become more equal the gap between women and men in math closes, and that includes the far end of the bell curve. If women were so naturally stupid then nothing of the sort would happen.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Where was the equality there? She taught me more with what she did than any of your arguments or sources ever will. Call me a bitter idiot and ridicule me if you desire, but i will not be fooled again.

You say there was equality, so there was nothing selected for? We were just randomly fucking eachother in an orgy with no direction at all, until suddenly patriarchy came from the void and ruined the party? The sexual organs developed randomly and have no predictive power on the attitude towards existence that one will have. The differences in brain size are just a long randomly socially constructed effect of patriarchy. Of course here is the part where you give me some mental gymnastics as to how there was "choice" but not enough to be significant. Where the sexual organs have some predictive power but are not everything. How despite a controlled environment the female and male brain difference can still be explained by the infinite amount of environmental variables.

I'm not saying there is no natural selection with sexual organs or brain size or any of it. Your problem is you assume that any natural difference between men and women automatically means men are superior. But Nature doesn't work like that. Women have different and smaller brains than men, but women still have the same general intelligence as men do.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

This is a very common behavior i see in you...

Yes i admit x, but since x is not absolute that means x is irrelevant and insignificant.

"Yes i admit there is a difference in average intelligence, but since its only about 5 points, it shouldn't really matter.

Even if Lynn's study was completely accurate and reflected some truth written in stone, so what? How will that affect your decision-making? If a woman in a profession is just as qualified, intelligent, and capable as a man in that same profession, or even more qualified, intelligent, and capable, will you reject the woman simply because she is a woman? You also said that a "proper" woman stays all the time in the house and looks after a man's interests. How would an 5 IQ point difference justify such things? Never mind that women throughout human history did hard work and did not stay cooped up at home all the time.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

But i wonder how would you answer it? Would you say that the disparity between me and the other guy was itself a mistake, would you say that my preference for her "intelligence" is a mistake itself? Perhaps i should've just closed my eyes and "eeenie meenie minie mo".

Your evidence is all words and no action, thinking that if i ignore my senses and believe in the word long enough, it will eventually come true...

So you're going to make an entire worldview, and ignore all evidence against it, because of one think that happened? You act as if biologists and sociologists just make shit up. They don't.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Why does inequality make you butthurt?

You are far nastier and angrier to me than the other way around. Clearly you are butthurt and more emotional than I am.

The main thing is my jokes are funny and based on facts - overwhelming influence of a certain tribe in global politics compared to their actual numbers, and the fact that their influence is destructive to white people.

Your jokes are based on disregarding the fact that the Communists far outnumbered the Nazis, aka on disregarding the scientific principle of all other factors equal (ceteris paribus), which I'm glad you did because it showed how hypocritical you are, and that you only pretend to care about science when you think it supports your views, but you disregard actual scientific principles the moment it is convenient for you.

The only reason Nazis are hated is the post-war propaganda. Objectively speaking, they're the modern day equivalent of Spartans - they had better quality men, they caused disproportionate losses to the enemy, and they ultimately lost due to being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. In a saner world, we would be admiring them in the same way we admire the 300 Spartans.

I don't know about you, but the Nazis had plenty of allies, including Imperial Japan, Italy, Croatia etc. This also includes all territories occupied by Italy (Libya and Albania) and Japan (Thailand and Indonesia). Germany did not enter a one-man war against the world.

Also, about fascism standing up to degeneracy, you do realize that fascism is not a refutation against Capitalism and Christianity. Fascism is made up of Capitalism and Christianity. The Catholic Church greatly supported Hitler and Mussolini during the war. The very word "privatization" was created to describe what Hitler and big business did in Nazi Germany, which was to take government-owned sectors and give it to wealthy business-owners [1].

American capitalists admired Nazi Germany before WW2, when Hitler interfered with American business interests. They thought fascism was a return to noble "tradition" and, like fascists, they sought to destroy those who opposed business interests; union groups, communists, anarchists, feminists etc. America has behaved in a similar way long after WW2.

America officially despises Nazis but American government is much closer to fascism than communism. America is a system where corporations practically own the government at this point and have slowly deregulated, and well privatized, over the decades. And don't forget that most American politicians are zealot Christians and hold views similar to fascists, such as controlling women's bodies, deregulation of corporations, and so forth.

Mussolini is often believed to have said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” He never said this, but it does reveal the truth that fascism is just capitalism behaving sincerely. Here is an actual quote Mussolini said, that says that same thing in essence, that corporatism birthed fascism, "The corporative regime, “typical creation and legitimate pride of the fascist revolution,” the cornerstone of the fascist State, “which is corporate or is not fascist,” was made, if not already, the doctrine, the doctrine of inspiration since December of ’21."

Face it, fascism is the most degenerate political ideology ever devised by humans.

The only reason Nazis are hated is the post-war propaganda. Objectively speaking, they're the modern day equivalent of Spartans - they had better quality men, they caused disproportionate losses to the enemy, and they ultimately lost due to being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. In a saner world, we would be admiring them in the same way we admire the 300 Spartans.

Um, all the genocide Nazis did against many groups of people probably has to do with it. I doubt Serbians liked Nazis very much. I'm not sure disabled people liked Nazis either. I doubt I have to mention all the Germans who didn't like Nazis, nor the Jews or Roma. But nah, the Nazis were the noble 300 Spartans, not brainwashed tools of a corrupt government.

Last edited by Black Jew Witch on Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

So your alternative is to let criminals roam freely, murdering, raping, thieving as they seem fit? And when you are the victim, won't you run to the authorities, the very ones you just rebuked? Sounds like a simple contradiction-hypocrisy to me. You basically bite the hand that feeds you.

No, I'm not saying let loose all criminals. But please let loose people arrested for having weed and not putting non-violent offenders for 20+ years in prison. That is what most black people are arrested for. Even Nixon's aid admitted that the War on Drugs was made up to put black people in jail.

Aeon wrote:

I'm cool but others are not? Does that mean you agree with my perspective on feminism? Do you even know my position or are you self-absorbed? To me, a "feminine woman" is one who is dignified, does not slut around, is self confident with her ability to seduce, chooses a mate, a man with severe discrimination, cooks for her man, and builds a home, and family for herself. She defends what she has created and is responsible for. She is not ashamed of herself, like modern women and "feminisnts" are.

If that is your feminine ideal, great. But don't force other women to conform to one man's ideals. Most modern women and feminists aren't ashamed of themselves. Traditionally-minded women are more ashamed of themselves because they believe in doctrines (such as Christianity or Islam) that outright state that women's bodies are disgusting, that women are responsible for the corruption of mankind, and women should be ashamed for themselves. Many atheist right wingers say the same thing, just try to dress up their bigotry with pseudoscience.

Also, not all discrimination is good. Some discrimination is good, if it is informed and well-thought. Discrimination based on on prejudice or fear is just bad.

Aeon wrote:

A really feminine woman is not a "feminist" by any means. The word "feminism" is an inversion, a corruption, twisting around the premise, a feminine-woman, as a means of political ideology and leverage. The ideal of "feminists" and those who created the movement, is to undermine and destroy traditional homes and families, marriages, and the truly 'feminine' women.

If you were a feminine woman then you would quickly learn how feminism is a sham, and detrimental to yourself, and other women.

I don't know about you, but I like being able to vote, having my own bank account, not being turned down for a profession just for being a woman, being accepted in society for my own merits and not judged badly just for being a woman, and being able to reject a partner who abuses or rapes me and not depend on such a person for safety or money.

No matter the ability of women, they will always have wombs and men have the penis. And men will always be fighting over control of the women. There has yet to be any sort of female 'take over' of civilization because women rely on men, still.

Women will have their 'equality' when men stop competing over them (and all men treat women the same, don't kid yourself). Enabling women greater 'rights' is just the current established patriarchs wanting to prevent them from siding with a different patriarch.

If the patriarchs succeed, they only succeed in bandaids. Islam will be a temporary 'refresher' of exotic masculinity, and then the same problems will arise again. What amount of stupefying will they have to sink to in order to get their fix of masculine spirit again? Maybe they'll start having women fuck gorillas.

@Satyr, if you read what I said, I never said sexual urges was never a factor in rape, but that rape is caused by many other factors too. You can't pin rape as only a sexual thing and then try to make it normal and acceptable human behavior because nature fallacy. And I have the quote here just in case you think I'm making things up.

@Black Jew WitchAll you offer is the same post-modern rhetoric, and Marxist based idealism, I have encountered everywhere, from YouTube, to the Networks...it is repeated daily in television shows and in movie blockbusters.You offer nothing new.I have addressed these delusional ideologies....as have some others willing to risk careers and reputation for the sake of truth.If you ever add something new to the rhetoric, I will address it.All else has been given a reply. Read precisely what I say about the big three issues in Modern social activism: females, homosexuals, part of the same theme, and race. You offer nothing in response but what is currently popular.Since you do not want me to repeat myself, spare me from your repeating crap, or read what is already posted, here and elsewhere, if you care to do so....because I really do not care if you don't.

I'm going to leave you with an insinuating question...Twins are born, one male and another female.They share most of the same DNA....yet the male develops differently. He grows taller, and more muscled, but do the differences end there?How could the same DNA allocate the same, in general as you say, potentials, so differently, and why would nature be so "unfair"?

Answer that, honestly, and you will understand why men dominate in the creative arts, and in philosophy and in innovative science and technology, and females dominate in social relationships, and intuitive psychological insight...and why Negroes do not have the same potentials as Europeans do.Think specialization. One species is a Jaguar, the other a Cheetah...both have, in general, approximately, the same DNA, but one is agile and climbs trees, and the other is the fastest land animal. Specialization is the allocation of energies, and the development of different traits.

That 5%, or 0.5% or 0.005% makes all the difference. How could a small genetic difference make one species remain a simple animal, like chimpanzees, and another develop spaceships?

If whores built the west, by challenging the male authorities, as you wrongly believe, then why do you remain trapped in the shadow of authorities and you refuse to see for yourself? Is it because what they say satisfies your desires, flatters you, pleases you? You are no philosopher, dear. You are another woman, who wants to feel safe, and to be loved, and to be appreciated and respected and taken seriously, and listened to...and you want the State, the institution, to be like a father, and help you do so.

Universities, as many academics now tell us, have been taken over by the social warriors of post-modernity, bread and raised since the sixties on Marxist propaganda.

The humanities, in particular, are dominated by hippie types and activist more interested in bringing about a Utopian Marxist society, than exploring reality. Peterson is one of many who are exposing the infection of the same dis-ease infecting culture, in academia.

Yeah... that canard. You do realize there are many prominent right wing professors at universities, and they regular lectures. I've been to a very liberal college and a very liberal university, and not once did I encounter a fanatical "social justice warrior" among students or teachers. The whole Marxists-have-taken-over spiel is made to scare people.

Do you even know what a Marxist is? Or a nihilist? Or a post-modernist? They are not the same things.

Satyr wrote:

In their desperation to prove that Negroes are equal to other races, and to explain why there si no civilization before contact with the evil White man, comparable to those found in Asia and Europe, they shamelessly attempt to make Egyptian civilization one established by Negroes.

You make two fallacies:

1. That there were no Sub-Saharan civilizations, or were inferior to Europe and China. Sub-Saharan Africa had civilizations, even empires. The Ghana and Mali empires are the first that come to mind, and both empires ruled when the "superior" Anglos were still living in huts. Musa I of Mali was arguably the richest man to have ever lived, with a fortune of $800 billion by modern standards. The University of Timbuktu was one of the greatest universities during the Middle Ages. Again, "superior" whites lived in huts or moldy castles during that time.

2. That civilization means one is more intelligent. It is not. "Savage" societies have very complex cultures, traditions, histories, languages, and practices. Some are more nuanced than ours, and some are not. Just living in "primitive" wilderness takes great knowledge and skill of your environment; its creatures, its weather, its plants, its cycles, and this knowledge takes generations to build. Primitive does not mean simple.

Satyr wrote:

Since I've been reprimanded for repeating myself, and sounding like a "broken record" when I repeat the same arguments these degenerates fail to respond to, and then throwing at me the same crap I've faced for twenty years, I promise to never respond to the same tired crap again.

Dude, I responded to almost everything you threw at me. If you've been this angry and frustrated for 20 years, well, seriously smoke a blunt and relax. It may help with your constipation.

Satyr wrote:

From now on, I will respond to this degenerate that all her posts have been answered, here, and in many other threads throughout KT and other Forums.If she offers no challenges to them, directly, but cites the same crap, seeking validation in authorities infected by her dis-ease, and offers no logical explanations to the queries I make into her absurdities, then there's really nothing more to say. Her positions, though regurgitated, fail to offer explanations, not only to the positions quoted above, but to observations into species behaviour throughout nature. She simply wants to cherry pick studies made by her social warrior types, to validate positions she cannot justify on her own. All she does is hide behind authorities, while declaring whores in the wold west as being challenging to institutional authority and paternalism.She contradicts her own declarations, with actions. Here she is, a real female, completely dependent on authorities, declaring females as being rebels and challenging authority. Unable to offer her own arguments, all she has are these proxies. In the meantime she is a living example of all my positions concerning females and their mentality.

I've given her a response constructed by another, since she does not respect anything that comes from unauthorized sources, and cannot judge an argument on merit, but only values it based on popularity and official, sanctioning. The idea that science is also corrupted by cultural influences, and their dependence on funding, is not enough to question authorities that tell her exactly what she wants to believe. Rape is rampant in nature. No social power games, or human contrivances there. Only basic reproduction strategies. No moralities, and 'oughts" and 'should be's', only basic utility and cost/benefit judgment calls.

The authors of the book I quoted offer some very compelling reasoning into many aspect of rape...from why young females with mates seem to suffer more distress than do females with no mate or older females that cannot conceive, to explanations as to why rape is so distressful to females, generally, when no damage is done, and they are built to be penetrated.

I never said I didn't respect any unauthorized sources. I just think reliable sources, such as thorough research from experienced professionals, are more reliable in knowing the truth than something some random dude pulls out of his ass. It's common sense, or is that "feminization" too. Every woman is a "confirmed example" of your weird social Darwinist pseudoscience since that's all you want to see.

All you offer is the same post-modern rhetoric, and Marxist based idealism, I have encountered everywhere, from YouTube, to the Networks...it is repeated daily in television shows and in movie blockbusters.You offer nothing new.I have addressed these delusional ideologies....as have some others willing to risk careers and reputation for the sake of truth.If you ever add something new to the rhetoric, I will address it.All else has been given a reply. Read precisely what I say about the big three issues in Modern social activism: females, homosexuals, part of the same theme, and race. You offer nothing in response but what is currently popular.Since you do not want me to repeat myself, spare me from your repeating crap, or read what is already posted, here and elsewhere, if you care to do so....because I really do not care if you don't.

Let me guess, the obsession with women, LGBTQ, and nonwhites is part of some Jewish conspiracy to destroy cis white males. If you really don't care, then why do you keep responding to me over and over and over again? You must be the easiest man to troll in the entire world.

Satyr wrote:

I'm going to leave you with an insinuating question...Twins are born, one male and another female.They share most of the same DNA....yet the male develops differently. He grows taller, and more muscled, but do the differences end there?How could the same DNA allocate the same, in general as you say, potentials, so differently, and why would nature be so "unfair"?

Answer that, honestly, and you will understand why men dominate in the creative arts, and in philosophy and in innovative science and technology, and females dominate in social relationships, and intuitive psychological insight...and why Negroes do not have the same potentials as Europeans do.Think specialization. One species is a Jaguar, the other a Cheetah...both have, in general, approximately, the same DNA, but one is agile and climbs trees, and the other is the fastest land animal. Specialization is the allocation of energies, and the development of different traits.

That 5%, or 0.5% or 0.005% makes all the difference. How could a small genetic difference make one species remain a simple animal, like chimpanzees, and another develop spaceships?

I went through a huge amount of research from biologists, anthropologists, behavior scientists, paleontologists on that question. I answered quite thoroughly how men and women have the same general intelligence (despite women being slightly better at some tasks, men being slightly better at others), and debunked the studies saying otherwise.

Satyr wrote:

If whores built the west, by challenging the male authorities, as you wrongly believe, then why do you remain trapped in the shadow of authorities and you refuse to see for yourself? Is it because what they say satisfies your desires, flatters you, pleases you? You are no philosopher, dear. You are another woman, who wants to feel safe, and to be loved, and to be appreciated and respected and taken seriously, and listened to...and you want the State, the institution, to be like a father, and help you do so.

So whores didn't build the wild west because... me. Makes total sense. I'm aware that "authorities" such as science have their limitations. I even discussed that earlier, expressing my doubts over concepts such as IQ, science being the absolute determination of all truth, and the idea that you can use some argument from biology to determine the essential worth of a human being. I expressed doubts on those "authorities" many people take for granted.

You make me laugh real hard, bro. I may spit out my drink on accident, then I'll have to get a new laptop.

Yeah... that canard. You do realize there are many prominent right wing professors at universities, and they regular lectures. I've been to a very liberal college and a very liberal university, and not once did I encounter a fanatical "social justice warrior" among students or teachers. The whole Marxists-have-taken-over spiel is made to scare people.

Then you haven't consulted with Peterson, and many others on the matter. You are living in the delusion that universities are not dominated by Cultural Marxism, and that this started in the 60's.

BJ-W wrote:

Do you even know what a Marxist is? Or a nihilist? Or a post-modernist? They are not the same things.

HA!!!Oh sweetie, I've been writing on that very subject for years.I've redefined Nihilism.It is a mental dis-ease. But I will not repeat what is already posted...in many pages of explanations, arguments, and evidence.

BJ-W wrote:

You make two fallacies:

1. That there were no Sub-Saharan civilizations, or were inferior to Europe and China. Sub-Saharan Africa had civilizations, even empires. The Ghana and Mali empires are the first that come to mind, and both empires ruled when the "superior" Anglos were still living in huts. Musa I of Mali was arguably the richest man to have ever lived, with a fortune of $800 billion by modern standards. The University of Timbuktu was one of the greatest universities during the Middle Ages. Again, "superior" whites lived in huts or moldy castles during that time.

By the gods, you are naive. Those are civilizations comparable to Babylon, Rome, China?Are you that daft?And yet, after centuries of developing their "great civilizations" Europeans came to enslave them, and take them form their huts.Do you know why they did not evolve, when Europeans had to...or is this not part of your Marxist training?Mud huts, and spears are not comparable to citadels and armor, dear. Beethoven is not comparable to jungle drums and twerking.

BJ-W wrote:

2. That civilization means one is more intelligent. It is not. "Savage" societies have very complex cultures, traditions, histories, languages, and practices. Some are more nuanced than ours, and some are not. Just living in "primitive" wilderness takes great knowledge and skill of your environment; its creatures, its weather, its plants, its cycles, and this knowledge takes generations to build. Primitive does not mean simple.

Yes, compared to gorillas and chimpanzees they were very advanced. Too bad their "great advancement" could not protect them from what sailed up their costs, and took them to work.

BJ-W wrote:

Dude, I responded to almost everything you threw at me. If you've been this angry and frustrated for 20 years, well, seriously smoke a blunt and relax. It may help with your constipation.

"Dude is not what a lady would say to a man....so i smell something vulgar. I'm very chill, dudess....so chill, I do not want to ruin my buzz with your inane chatter. The only thing you've addressed is the noise in your head.

BJ-W wrote:

I never said I didn't respect any unauthorized sources.

You never said much of anything, did you?You simply implied, insinuated, and deferred to brilliant authorities offering wonderful arguments....like a woman.

BJ-W wrote:

I just think reliable sources, such as thorough research from experienced professionals, are more reliable in knowing the truth than something some random dude pulls out of his ass. It's common sense, or is that "feminization" too. Every woman is a "confirmed example" of your weird social Darwinist pseudoscience since that's all you want to see.

I like sources as ell...only I do not settle for the first one that makes me feel good.Like i do not take advice, seriously, when it comes from a questionable "friend".Of course post-modernity would dominate, in the academic fields, as Thornhill, and Palmer, and Peterson, and many others already explain.Will you reject Darwin's Evolution Theory, or is his name synonymous to Hitler - close your ears when the name is mentioned and hum a happy tune.

All you have are insinuations, declarations, and google search where you find power in association. The rest is emotional, egotistical, and feminine...all too feminine.

You said Germany didn't enter the WW2 alone, my picture showed this exact thing - it had allies. Your entire post is like that.

You seem to have implied the whole world was made of "degenerates" out to destroy Nazi Germany and its few good allied nations. The problem with that is Nazi had many powerful allies such as Japan and Italy, both of which could be considered empires with many occupied territories (Japan especially). Nazi Germany and her allies weren't like King Leonidas and his brave troops in the 300 movie.

And Nazi Germany was as "degenerate" as every other white nation as it was a very capitalist/corporatist state. This was why Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola became so disappointed with the Nazis and National Fascist Party. They had a romantic fantasy that fascists would rescue Europe from "degeneracy" and return it to the old days of spiritual, warrior values. But fascism turned out to be just another money-driven bureaucracy that treated human beings as cogs in a machine.

Let me guess, the obsession with women, LGBTQ, and nonwhites is part of some Jewish conspiracy to destroy cis white males.

Yes, I'm also a skinhead Nazi, live in my mother's basement, have never had sex, and I have a small penis...It's all part of the process. Dozens of imbeciles over dozens of years....there are patterns that repeat.

BJ-W wrote:

If you really don't care, then why do you keep responding to me over and over and over again? You must be the easiest man to troll in the entire world.

This is exactly the kind of reply I've received from women, more than a few times.Pussy-power, dear. That's my answer.Why do I bother with you?Pussy-power.

BJ-W wrote:

I went through a huge amount of research from biologists, anthropologists, behavior scientists, paleontologists on that question. I answered quite thoroughly how men and women have the same general intelligence (despite women being slightly better at some tasks, men being slightly better at others), and debunked the studies saying otherwise.

Yet, experience shows that no women ever revolutionized any field, except for a few exceptions to the rule, that proves the rule....not in the culinary arts, or the arts in general, not in philosophy, not in medicine, not in technology, not in any field where thinking "outside the box" is a requirement.They offer support, follow recipes and methods religiously, they repeat arguments and regurgitate ideas...and they keep us all warm.

Are all males physically and mentally superior to all females? Of course not.Degrees, dear. No female can reach the upper 1% of male physical and mental potentials. Nature is so unjust. Can the State, with laws, correct this natural injustice?With strict rules, preventing men from being men....no.....the answer is still no. But if everyone pretends, then it's as good as done. But then...you'll complain about that.

BJ-W wrote:

So whores didn't build the wild west because... me. Makes total sense. I'm aware that "authorities" such as science have their limitations. I even discussed that earlier, expressing my doubts over concepts such as IQ, science being the absolute determination of all truth, and the idea that you can use some argument from biology to determine the essential worth of a human being. I expressed doubts on those "authorities" many people take for granted.

You make me laugh real hard, bro. I may spit out my drink on accident, then I'll have to get a new laptop.

The LOL always follows....it's part of the same routine I've encountered many times before.Next it's...I was playing with ya for entertainment, or manipulating you, and indifferent....The "you make me laugh", is classic.Part of the forums for imbeciles handbook Very creative on your part. New, for me.

What kind of woman uses "bro" so casually?Hmmm...

_________________γνῶθι σεαυτόνμηδέν άγαν

Last edited by Satyr on Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:32 am; edited 5 times in total

Historically men vote on behalf of their women and children. Feminism-Marxism "winning" the vote, is yet another means of displacing the woman, taking her out of her home (where she is happiest), under the delusion that "she is finally equal with men". However that elusive "equality" you are looking for, is a myth.

Allowing women to vote may very well weaken, or eventually destroy a society. It's the same as allowing a child to sit in the car seat, or fly a plane. The experience pilot, a man, may do well to have the child *pretend* to be flying the plane for a moment, but only for a moment. The child then begins to fantasize in his head that he is "equal" with a pilot. But this equality myth is dangerous. The plane given over to the child to fly, would be a disaster. Same as giving it over to a woman.

"But there are female pilots!!!" You didn't get the point. You've taken a woman out of her home, out of the family unit, in order to fulfill a Marxist propaganda. That still doesn't men and women equal. Equal pay would not prove what you want. Equal amount of male pilots with female pilots, would not prove your point. Even a woman, very rare, as skilled as an average pilot, would not prove what you want.

Instead what the scenario demonstrates is that lots of energy and effort has been pushed into an ideology, the pretense, to pretend as though "women are equal with men", meanwhile even if I grant you all that you want, still does not prove your point or what you want. A woman "equal with man" in all respects of society and a profession, performance (even though facts disprove you on this, it takes the top 0.001% of women to match male averages on performance, especially in war) is no longer a "feminine-woman". She wants to become a masculine-woman, something ulterior to her nature.

It's like women pretending you don't have a womb, and that you don't have the offer of sex to fall back upon, when you always do. If a woman fails in society, competing against men (which devalues male labor by the way), then she can fall back upon sex. Men cannot. So this omission really exposes your agenda as a false, baseless one.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

having my own bank account,

So you rather have a bank account than children and a marriage? And this is the sacrifice you make to role-play in fantasy, that having bank accounts makes "women equal with men"? It just sounds like you're materialistic.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

not being turned down for a profession just for being a woman,

Career-driven women are unfeminine, which is a character defect. If a woman has children then she wants to care, nurture, and stay home with them. Trying to "be equal with men" in the workplace is counter-intuitive to having children, and caring for them.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

being accepted in society for my own merits

What are the merits of women?

Black Jew Witch wrote:

and not judged badly just for being a woman,

Too bad, it goes both ways. There are many ways that men are "judged badly just for being a man". Are strange men trusted around children, for example? But strange women are okay. There are many, common sense and typical scenarios where women are inherently trusted throughout society, but men are not.

Why are men criminals, but women are not? Doesn't that sound sexist to you?

and being able to reject a partner who abuses or rapes me and not depend on such a person for safety or money.

Stupidity is its own punishment. Society should not feel pity or immediately come to the aid of women who chase after bad boys, later get "raped" by them, and then bitch about the fact that the bad boys pumped and dumped them. Real "rape" has become rare in modern society. It's not a big threat in first world countries. Also a lot of rapes come from women being drunk. How about, quit fucking being drunk when acting slutty and walking around town at night in bathing suits?

How about some personal responsibility? If you really want "equality with men" then you should agree with me. No more victimization. How much pity do you think a "male victim" receives compared to a female victim? Males generally garner no significant sympathy in life, compared to women and children. The world does not stop for homeless bums (80% male).

Why are males homeless bums?

Why are males criminals?

Why are males soldiers?

Where is your "gender equality" except selectively, when it suits you personally? Aren't you exposed as a hypocrite, using "feminism" to boost your admitted private bank account, instead of "real gender equality" in the areas I mentioned?

Women who claim that rape is about power and not sex are usually feminists. They do it because if they admitted that rape is about sex, it would mean that some men rape because they have an issue - they cannot obtain sex. Such an admission that men have problems too is incompatible with feminism because feminists rely on maintaining an exclusive victim status in order to play upon the damsel in distress trope and extract sympathy and thus money and power from men. Male victims would be competition to feminists.

Women who claim that rape is about power and not sex are usually feminists. They do it because if they admitted that rape is about sex, it would mean that some men rape because they have an issue - they cannot obtain sex. Such an admission that men have problems too is incompatible with feminism because feminists rely on maintaining an exclusive victim status in order to play upon the damsel in distress trope and extract sympathy and thus money and power from men. Male victims would be competition to feminists.

This idea is part of post-modern rhetoric.Marxism wants to make everything a social construct, because then they can claim that it can be corrected.It's social engineering masked as ideology of the 'good'.But this contradicts their positions that homosexuality and transexuality are genetic. they want it both ways.Like I've repeatedly said, Nihilism must lie. It has to be duplicitous, otherwise its own dogma condemns the host to a certain end.He who denies reality becomes a victim of it.

What they practice is compartmentalization, converting it to esoteric, or subjective, sources, where anything goes. This is what I've called the pure noumenon - abstractions with no external references in the phenomenal world. This is a cleansing bath of Siloam.In the esoteric all contradictions are absolved, synthesized in multiple convenient, ways...because only in the mind can contradictions coexist in vagueness, in theory, in linguistic insinuations and metaphors.In the real world contradictions annihilate each other.Attraction/Repulsion is held in a tenuous, relationship, in the real world, whereas in the mind they can merge, into a theoretical complete whole, a one, and then represented with a word/symbol, or compartmentalized into a schizophrenic duality, where the same mind can hold two contradictory positions and not be concerned.

This tension we experience, as conscious entities, as need/suffering. It requires constant effort to remain an organism, for this reason. But in theory the tensions are erased in vagueness, in insinuations that require no clarity, and would dissipate if clarified.

I digress..The problem for them is they cannot accept what I've said many times, that sex, the act of heterosexual copulation, is an act of aggression - one organism penetrating the very being of another.This demands an adjustment to the fight/flight mechanism in the form of emotion, or attitude/demeanour.The body produces the chemicals to subdue the brain - love being one example.

A female is a natural adaptation to this necessity - to accept the approach and penetration of an alien entity, and then to gestate and ween it. This is the root of the feminine psyche.The female retains self-esteem by being the one who chooses who will penetrate her, either to inseminate her ovum, or to forge a social alliance with an inferior male.It's the only source of power, left to her, once she's surrendered it by evolving the demeanour of submission.This is why rape, for young, fertile females is so distressful. It strips them of what power is available to them. In the studies quoted by the authors I quoted, older victims of rape, and females not in a relationship, seem to suffer less distress from rape.There's are evolutionary reasons for this, having to do with ensuring a male's commitment to a woman's offspring, and so on.

_________________γνῶθι σεαυτόνμηδέν άγαν

Last edited by Satyr on Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:51 am; edited 1 time in total

Specifically, they wouldn't be able to play both sides of the argument:1) Don't shame me for being slutty2) There exists women with internalized misogyny/whoredom is bad

If the problem were about sex, the solution would be to cover up and shut up.But, since it's about power, they're still victims.

Promiscuity is an insult to females but not to males, because females have to cultivate an assurance to all potential males that the offspring she brings to life will be his, and no others, so as to assure herself that he will continue contributing to her welfare.

A woman always attacks a male using sex as a weapon...either insulting a man's size, or manliness, or his ability to please her and serve her sexual needs...but towards other females her assault is always about promiscuity....being a slut, easy, in that she gives herself cheaply.Unsophisticated men-children always feel proud, and brag about how well they can please females, and how many females they have access to, whereas unsophisticated females brag about the status and wealth and quality of the male they've submitted to - Hypergamy.

Sex is crucial to a female's status.

A promiscuous male is proud, sending a message to any potential mates that he is desirable.A promiscuous female is ashamed, because the message is that she is cheap, or that any potential mate cannot be sure if the child she brings to the world is his or if it is another's.

_________________γνῶθι σεαυτόνμηδέν άγαν

Last edited by Satyr on Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:45 am; edited 1 time in total

Feminists operate on the premise that "males and females are equal" which is utterly false and hopeless. It is either a naive proposition, by a child, or a propaganda by an adult, a lie. Some Marxists use feminist propaganda for personal or social gain throughout life. Supporting "feminism" is a means to support the social status quo, hypothetically.

One important factor to consider with men, women, and sex, is that males are humiliated early in life, facing rejection by approaching young girls, when the testosterone is fresh and a new experience. This is demoralizing and humbling for young men, who then become jaded in their own ways (after being rejected multiple times), beta male psychology. For females the demoralization and humiliation occurs later in life, in their late 20s and 30s, when their biological clock for children is running out and drying up, and they are forced to compete against younger women (which they cannot in their 30s).

So sexual competition is inverted in the sexes, sexual dimorphism. For feminists to claim "gender equality" on top of sexual dimorphism, which is common sense, is basically a straight lie. A lie that demands to its adherents to close their eyes to reality and live in a delusional, made up world. A duplicitous world full of newspeak, where words don't mean what they mean.

Women who claim that rape is about power and not sex are usually feminists. They do it because if they admitted that rape is about sex, it would mean that some men rape because they have an issue - they cannot obtain sex. Such an admission that men have problems too is incompatible with feminism because feminists rely on maintaining an exclusive victim status in order to play upon the damsel in distress trope and extract sympathy and thus money and power from men. Male victims would be competition to feminists.

Yes, if they would say that it's about the sexual drive then they would say that men are not 'free' in that regard. In their understanding of society this would limit men's responsibilities and ascribed power and thus they would rise in the inverted modern hierarchy where the allegedly powerless are on top.

One important factor to consider with men, women, and sex, is that males are humiliated early in life, facing rejection by approaching young girls, when the testosterone is fresh and a new experience. This is demoralizing and humbling for young men, who then become jaded in their own ways (after being rejected multiple times), beta male psychology..

I actually think "not" getting jaded is what modern betas do, they endlessly continue to remain friends and appeal to females regardless of any lack of payoff.

Is the initial resentment towards females (given the institutional training) a sign of weakness or strength?From what ive seen, modern "Alpha males" tend to be among Feminism's passive supporters who support it out of never having felt the costs of female emancipation but mostly only the benefits.

Johnathan Bowden wrote:

And my view is that people will be attracted in the future not by reason. They will read up with their reason once they have decided to emotionally commit. The important thing is to get people emotionally. And it’s to appeal to the forces and wellsprings in their mind which are eternal, and which underpin rationality. The power of irrational belief as spiritual codification, of mystical belief, of belief in identity, of the need for communitarianism, and the need to belong, is immensely powerful. Far more powerful than the anything the Left can offer.

Sometimes i wonder if my scarring was necessary for me to be here...and i wonder if i really wish to build a world that prevents such scarring from occurring in the future...

Here i am with my newfound sword...every bit of my body wants to destroy the beast that harmed me, but ive grown to love what its done to me....i guess i should return the favor.

Last edited by Impulso Oscuro on Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

Alpha male psychology is different than beta and lower males, because women actually want to have sex with, and will compete against other women for attention. This is observed when a 'stud' has lots of options, phone numbers, different women to choose from weekly or daily. This strong female attraction for an alpha male is as rare as he is. Women are looking for the "top 1%" of males, similarly how men seek out the "top 1%" of females. The objectification of attraction is categorically different. Males almost always, generally, seek out beauty in women. While women are not reduced to one objectification, one goal, one desire, but have multiple.

Thus male desire is Singular, based on sex. And female desire is Multifarious (many), based on security. However the "charm" and "confidence" of an alpha male is reported as the most attractive trait. Women can "trust" in the alpha. The implication is that women can trust authority and the security (implied threat of violence) provided by the alpha male and his institution. All of society is governed by these threats of violence and in/security.

Feminism ignores these points because feminism is focused upon female psychology, not male. Feminism does want to nor cares to know about men or males, similar to the average woman. Women are not "interested in men" as much as women are interested in themselves, or other women (vanity). Thus human attention-seeking is female dominated. Women are interested in women. Men are interested in women. Nobody is really interested in men, not even men.

This applies to "know thyself". Women generally "know themselves" better than average men, because attention is generally or always directed to women anyway.

Male authorities are exceptions. It is not until men become institution authorities, representatives of power, that men begin to be fed attention, status, and power. So a male's social value is *zero* until he invests or re-invests into general society and institutions. Female value is implied, it is high from the onset.

Young males must generally appeal to young females, not the other way around.

Male hierarchy is like a equilateral triangle. The top 1%, at the top of the pyramid, males receive almost all of the female attention. In the u.s. consider the "NFL quarterback". Women, and beta males, fantasize about the NFL quarterback, as a "manly man", an alpha symbol. Women want to fuck them, and men want to 'be' him. However most men cannot compete physically, and so compensate in other ways, which are forms of "cheerleading". Being part of the crowd, cheering for the team.

Like in war, the cities root for their own armies' victory. The weaker and lesser men do not fight.

Female hierarchy (not equal to men) is a *circle*. Thus female psychology is baseless, more aligned to herd instinct (which has evolved with sexual reproduction, and in mammals specifically). So females revolve around the center, in a circle, vying to be the "most secure" which is called "privilege". Feminism is obsessed with this "privilege" and want to compete for it. Feminism is, generally, about increasing female power and privilege.

This is why Black Jew Witch wants to claim the "rights of men" for herself, and implying along the way, *that she sacrifice nothing* NOR DOES SHE EVEN *acknowledge the sacrifices and works of men*.

Male hierarchy is like a equilateral triangle. The top 1%, at the top of the pyramid, males receive almost all of the female attention. In the u.s. consider the "NFL quarterback". Women, and beta males, fantasize about the NFL quarterback, as a "manly man", an alpha symbol. Women want to fuck them, and men want to 'be' him. However most men cannot compete physically, and so compensate in other ways, which are forms of "cheerleading". Being part of the crowd, cheering for the team.

Like in war, the cities root for their own armies' victory. The weaker and lesser men do not fight.

I think much of the resentment from "betas" and those on the periphery comes from not being able to challenge alpha males on an open arena.

I remember Satyr's criticism of Anarchists believing that they would fare better without the sheltering of the state, but i do think there is a degree of sheltering that modern alpha males have, where they have the appearance of beauty and strength but none of the substance.

Hierarchies used to be in flux in the past, whereas today they remain relatively static with little to no hope of ascending.

My critique of anarchism was as a beta-male attitude towards established hierarchies, supported by institutions. Anarchists are inferior males who comfort themselves es with the idea that if civilization and its established hierarchies were to crumble that they would fair better in the aftermath.I'm not saying this cannot be true, but from the ones I've talked to, and their psychology and mind, I think it is a form of self-confronting flattery. It attracts males who accuse others of their social status, and overestimate themselves, believing that if all crumbled they would rise to the top.

Anarchy, as an idea, attracts such males, or males that want to level the playing field, to get rid of the established supportive relationships.My critique of Modern conservatism runs along those lines. It's the other pole of the Nihilistic paradigm.Modern conservatism, as it is represented in the states, preaches equal opportunity, but what is practiced is nepotism. It partly explains the dominance of the Jews in America.Take the British Royal Family.One ancestor proved worthy of kingship, and then generations profited that did not have to prove their worth....unlike in nature, where the offspring of alpha males do not necessarily dominate a pack.

I used NFL quarterbacks as pop-culture examples. They are *representatives* of what average people believe is an alpha male. I mean this to say that an average man idolizes the NFL quarterback, and wishes he were him, while females imagine seducing and having the NFL quarterback, along with the monetary wealth the position represents. The NFL in general is a representation of tribal conflicts, internal competition and infighting. Similar to European countries going to war with each other. The fans represent the more passive masses, civilian, who lack ability and physicality able to compete.

However, yes, these are institutionalized forms. There are many forms of 'alpha' status throughout society. For example, if you need scientific information about physics, which authorities do you turn to and trust? You go to the professors, the dominant thinkers. Or people can turn to other specializations: lawyers, firefighters, policemen, soldiers. All of these, again, have their own sub-hierarchies. Historically a top "alpha" position would be arch-bishop, king, emperor, lord, etc. "king of kings".

Alpha positions are characterized by male competition and dominance. Women do not compete directly in such arenas. Just as women cannot hope to compete against NFL quarterbacks (no women NFL players) nor in war against average men as soldiers.

Humanity and history has evolved in such a way that the greatest standing armies, and militaristic technologies, have created new progression of 'alpha' status through violence and threats of violence. Since humanity has developed enough nuclear capability to massacre most of the human specie, humanity has hit a wall. There is not much room for expansion. Military conquests are hindered and limited, stifled. There are limitations as to what humans will sacrifice, based on what can be gained, from conflict, competition, and war. And a large portion of fighting revolves around women and females.

What are men fighting for, if not their women? Again the NFL is an example. Take away the cheerleaders, the beautiful women cheering on the team, and will it affect morale? Would men fight as hard, compete as hard, if there were no hope for sexual successes or conquests?

How much of Mammalian evolution, male infighting and competition, revolves around sex... after other resources, food, have been secured?

Animals and organisms do not operate the same way on full or empty stomachs. Humanity has its belly full, and has not starved for centuries, representing further shifts away from "reality". Things get pretty 'real' when people go hungry. In fact, I regularly hear that in World War II, there was mass starvation which was the main cause of death, not "death camps" and holocausts. It was simply starvation, to death. That makes more sense anyway.